My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/22/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
5/22/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:13 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:26:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/22/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attorney Brandenburg indicated that was his understanding. <br />Attorney Mann felt there is some language in the proposed <br />ordinance which codifies to some extent some policies that are <br />stated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. One of the policies <br />concerns parcels of land that abut two different roadways, one <br />being a major thoroughfare and one being a secondary road. She <br />explained that her clients' site plan fronts U.S. #1 and Old <br />Dixie and they have been told that the Comp Plan policy states <br />that, if possible, the secondary use should be utilized in lieu <br />of U.S. #1. However, the proposed ordinance states that it shall <br />be mandatory to use the secondary road. It further states that <br />adjoining parcels not having double frontage are going to have to <br />join parking lots and exit from that parcel which has access to <br />the secondary road. She felt that could create a lot of chaos <br />and would be a hardship for both the developer who does not have <br />the frontage and the developer who does have the frontage. <br />Attorney Mann referred to Page 20 of the proposed ordinance: i. <br />Sites located at intersections shall access onto the roadway <br />having the lower functional classification. That paragraph goes <br />on to state that the applicant may be permitted to access onto <br />the higher classification if the Public Works Director determines <br />that such access would result in an improved traffic circulation <br />pattern. She noted that clause allows a little more flexibility <br />instead of making it mandatory, and that the clause should also <br />be included on Page 21 of the ordinance where it refers to site <br />plans that front two different roadways; one being a major <br />thoroughfare and one being a lower use roadway. She did not <br />feel it was fair to allow it for parcels that are on <br />intersections and not allow it on parcels that might be in the <br />middle of or far away from intersections. She did not understand <br />the meaning behind that and suggested on behalf of her client and <br />on behalf of future developers that it be permissible to put in <br />some alternative traffic pattern. <br />31 <br />BOOK 61 PcE � <br />MAY `' � 1985 J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.